Unity Interface in 10.10 Netbook Edition

[Tarun Khanna]

At some point this thread digressed from the original topic, but I guess
that's fine.

As suggested earlier I posted my concern on the ubuntu devel mailing list.
Apparently all of them are known issues and they are working on them.

I switched the desktop to regular Ubuntu Desktop and am happy once again.
There was a huge performance improvement, even flash plays a lot smoother. I
never realized that poor performance of flash was due to Unity.

A not for all the noobs. Please DO NOT install the Netbook Edition on your
netbooks or nettops. It's pathetically slow and doing so runs the risk of
giving you a bad impression of Ubuntu and Linux. Ubuntu is an amazing
distribution of Linux and Linux in general is awesome.

Thanks for all the comments.

Thanks,
Tarun


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Glenn Holmer <shadowm at lyonlabs.org>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 01:20 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> >> > Anyone know if this "Hurd" is more than vaporware? I mean after ten
> years
> >> > of "active development".....
> >>
> >> IMHO, it was wind from the backside of Stallman trying to be relevant,
> >> long after the horse left the barn, when Linus made his gift to the
> >> world. Linus made it happen. Linux will become what we allow it to
> >> become. Just as in politics. Ric
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html
>
>
> It's a good story. It's not actually entirely *true* but it's a good story.
>
> Yes, when the GNU Project decided to write a kernel, Linux did not
> exist yet. True.
>
> But there /was/ a free and Free Unix kernel that *did* already exist.
> They considered it, looked at it, decided not to adopt it and went for
> something else.
>
> The result was that the Free Unix-alike OS was not ready and usable
> except for specialists until about 1996 or '97 and not by only
> moderately-technical types until '98 when KDE 1.0 appeared.
>
> The kernel that the GNU Project decided not to go with was BSD.
>
> Although this was long before FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and so on, BSD
> had existed for 15 years or more and was widely used (with full
> sources available) in the US academic system. Unfortunately, it
> contained copyright code from AT&T and thus was not Free.
>
> But the GNU team didn't want the rest of the OS - they already had
> utilities, a compiler, an editor, etc. Most of a "userland". They just
> wanted a kernel.
>
> They could have gone for the BSD kernel, sorted out the licensing
> difficulties and started work on a complete Free Unix at the end of
> the '90s - but they chose not to. They decided to write their own, and
> worse still, chose a particularly ambitious design (not that they were
> to know that at the time).
>
> The statement on gnu.org carefully omits that bit, which is a shame,
> as it's rather important.
>
> --
> Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
> Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
> Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
> AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20101030/3abd6b95/attachment.html>